1 COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael L. Baum, Esq. (SBN: 119511) [email protected]R. Brent Wisner, Esq. (SBN: 276023) [email protected]Cynthia Garber, Esq. (SBN: 208922) [email protected]BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI, & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Esq. [email protected]Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. [email protected]KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, New York 12443 Telephone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile: (845) 230-3111 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERI MICHELLE MCCALL, individually, and as successor in interest for the estate of ANTHONY JACKSON MCCALL, deceased, Plaintiff, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 48 Page ID #:1
52
Embed
KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP GOLDMAN, P.C. · KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP 48 Dewitt Mills Road Telephone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile: (845) 230-3111 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Michael L. Baum, Esq. (SBN: 119511) [email protected] R. Brent Wisner, Esq. (SBN: 276023) [email protected] Cynthia Garber, Esq. (SBN: 208922) [email protected] BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI, & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Esq. [email protected] Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. [email protected] KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, New York 12443 Telephone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile: (845) 230-3111
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TERI MICHELLE MCCALL, individually, and as successor in interest for the estate of ANTHONY JACKSON MCCALL, deceased,
Plaintiff, vs.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant.
Case No. COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 48 Page ID #:1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 47
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 48 Page ID #:2
3 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCTION
1. Anthony Jackson McCall (a/k/a Jack McCall) operated a farm in Cambria,
California for over forty years with his wife, Teri Michelle McCall (“Plaintiff”). During
that time, he avoided most pesticides and herbicides out of concern they could be toxic.
Mr. McCall, however, did use the weed killer Roundup, an herbicide created and
manufactured by the Monsanto Company. Roundup was supposed to be safe. After all,
Monsanto promoted Roundup as being harmless to humans for over thirty years—going
so far as to proclaim the product safe as table salt. The truth, however, is far more
insidious. The active chemical in Roundup, glyphosate, is a carcinogen, and Monsanto
has known this fact for decades.
2. In September 2015, Mr. McCall was admitted to the hospital to treat
enlarged lymph nodes in his neck. That same day, he was diagnosed with an aggressive
form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Despite an aggressive treatment involving multiple
rounds of chemotherapy, Mr. McCall suffered a stroke caused by his cancer treatment
on December 24, 2015. On December 26, 2015, he passed away.
3. Three years prior to Mr. McCall’s death, the family dog, Duke, who
played in the areas sprayed with Roundup, also developed lymphoma. He died shortly
thereafter. He was only six years old.
4. The McCalls learned of the potential link between Roundup and cancer,
shortly after he was diagnosed with cancer. The farm immediately stopped using
Roundup and, to this day, does not use any glyphosate-containing products.
5. Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an
organization within the World Health Organization (WHO), conducted an exhaustive
analysis on the toxicity of glyphosate. The IARC, which has already reviewed
hundreds of other chemical agents, convened a panel of seventeen renowned scientists
from eleven countries, specifically screened to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to
conduct a systematic review of all publically available information about glyphosate.
The year-long study resulted in the publication of an IARC Monograph—the
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 48 Page ID #:3
4 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
authoritative standard for cancer hazard assessment around the world. The IARC
classified glyphosate as a Group 2A hazard, meaning it is a probable human
carcinogen—the second highest hazard rating. Additionally, the IARC concluded there
was a positive association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As a result of the IARC’s study of glyphosate, the State of California’s Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has decided to list glyphosate as
an agent “known to the state to cause cancer” under Proposition 65.
6. In 1970, Defendant Monsanto discovered the herbicidal properties of
glyphosate and began using it in its products in 1974, and marketing it under the brand
name Roundup. Roundup is a non-selective herbicide used to kill weeds that
commonly compete with the growing of crops. By 2001, glyphosate had become the
most-used active ingredient in American agriculture with 85–90 million pounds used
annually. That number grew to 185 million pounds by 2007.
7. Monsanto has represented Roundup as being safe to humans and the
environment since it began selling the herbicide. Indeed, Monsanto has proclaimed and
continues to proclaim to the world, and particularly to United States consumers, that
glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, create no unreasonable risks to human
health or to the environment. This is untrue. Before glyphosate was first approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Monsanto knew that glyphosate could
pose significant risks to human health, including a risk of causing cancer. This lawsuit
seeks to hold Monsanto accountable for this misconduct.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Teri McCall resides in the County of San Luis Obispo, California.
Plaintiff owns a farm in Cambria, California, which Plaintiff operated with her late
husband, Anthony Jackson McCall (the “Decedent”), for over 40 years. The Decedent
regularly used Roundup on their farm. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the
applicable wrongful death and survival statutes on behalf of the Anthony Jackson
McCall’s estate and his wrongful death beneficiaries, Teri McCall, David McCall, Paul
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 4 of 48 Page ID #:4
5 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
McCall, Maggie McCall, and Alicia Suarez.
9. Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) is a Delaware corporation
with its headquarters and principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. At all
times relevant to this complaint, Monsanto was the entity that discovered the herbicidal
properties of glyphosate and was the manufacturer of the Roundup at issue.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
There is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. In addition, Plaintiff
seeks damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Monsanto insofar as Monsanto
is authorized and licensed to conduct business in the State of California, maintains and
carries on systematic and continuous contacts in this judicial district, regularly
transacts business within this judicial district, and regularly avails itself of the benefits
of this judicial district.
12. Additionally, Monsanto caused tortious injury by acts and omissions in
this judicial district and caused tortious injury in this district by acts and omissions
outside this district while regularly doing and soliciting business, engaging in a
persistent course of conduct, and deriving substantial revenue from goods used or
consumed and services rendered in this judicial district.
13. Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred within this
judicial district.
WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVORSHIP ALLEGATIONS
14. Plaintiff is a competent adult and the surviving spouse of Anthony
Jackson McCall, deceased (“Decedent”). She brings this action as successor in interest
to the estate of the Decedent, and all other persons entitled to a cause of action for
damages for injuries to, and the wrongful death of, the Decedent.
15. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the applicable wrongful death and
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 5 of 48 Page ID #:5
6 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
survival statutes.
16. The survivors and heirs at law of the Decedent and their relationship to
the Decedent are:
Name Relationship
Alicia Suarez Daughter
David McCall Son
Paul McCall Son
Maggie McCall Daughter
17. On December 26, 2015, the Decedent died as a result of complications
associated with Roundup-induced cancer. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of
the Decedent’s death certificate.
18. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. P. § 337.32, attached hereto as Exhibit B is a
declaration by the Plaintiff, Teri Michelle McCall.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
19. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicide used in a wide
variety of herbicidal products around the world, including the popular herbicide
Roundup.
20. Glyphosate interferes with a plant’s ability to form aromatic amino acids
necessary for protein synthesis. Plants treated with glyphosate generally die within
two to three days. Because plants absorb glyphosate, it cannot be completely removed
by washing or peeling produce, or by milling, baking, or brewing grains.
21. The herbicidal properties of glyphosate were discovered in 1970 by
Monsanto chemist John Franz. The first glyphosate-based herbicide was introduced to
the market in the mid-1970s under the brand name Roundup.
22. For about 40 years, farmers around the world have used Roundup,
containing glyphosate, without knowing of the dangers its use poses. That is because,
when Monsanto first introduced Roundup, it touted glyphosate as a technological
breakthrough: it could kill almost every weed without causing harm either to people or
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 6 of 48 Page ID #:6
7 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to the environment. History, however, has demonstrated otherwise. According to the
WHO, the main chemical ingredient of Roundup—glyphosate—is a probable
carcinogen. Those most at risk are farm workers and other individuals with workplace
exposure to Roundup, such as workers in garden centers, nurseries, and landscapers.
Monsanto assured the public that Roundup was harmless. In order to prove this,
Monsanto championed falsified data and attacked legitimate studies exposing
glyphosate’s dangers. Monsanto orchestrated a prolonged campaign of misinformation
to convince government agencies, farmers, and the general population that Roundup
was safe. As a result of this deception, agricultural workers and farmers have been
exposed to a carcinogen, while Monsanto has made billions.
I. Registration of Herbicides
23. The manufacture, formulation, and distribution of herbicides, such as
Roundup, is regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq. FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered with
the EPA prior to distribution, sale, or use, except as described by the Act. 7 U.S.C. §
136a(a).
24. Because pesticides are toxic to plants, animals, and humans, at least to
some degree, the EPA requires as part of the registration process, among other things,
a variety of tests to evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to people
and other potential non-target organisms, and other adverse effects on the environment.
Registration by the EPA, however, is not an assurance or finding of safety. The EPA
does not deem certain products “safe,” but only that use of the product in accordance
with its label directions “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D).
25. FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean
“any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic,
social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. §
136(bb). FIFRA thus requires EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis in determining
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 7 of 48 Page ID #:7
8 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whether a registration should be granted or allowed to continue to be sold in commerce.
26. FIFRA generally requires that the registrant, Monsanto in the case of
Roundup, conduct the health and safety testing of pesticide products. The EPA has
protocols governing the conduct of tests required for registration and the laboratory
practices that must be followed in conducting those tests. The data produced by the
registrant must be submitted to the EPA for review and evaluation. The government is
not required, nor is it able, to perform the tests that are required of the manufacturer.
27. The evaluation of each pesticide product distributed, sold, or
manufactured is completed at the time the product is initially registered. The data
necessary for registration of a pesticide has changed over time. The EPA is now in the
process of re-evaluating all pesticide products through a congressionally-mandated
process called “re-registration.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1. In order to reevaluate these
pesticides, the EPA is demanding the completion of additional tests and the submission
of data for the EPA’s review and evaluation.
28. In the case of glyphosate, the EPA planned on releasing its preliminary
risk assessment—in relation to the re-registration process—no later than July 2015.
The EPA completed its review of glyphosate in early 2015, but it delayed releasing the
risk assessment pending further review in light of the WHO’s health-related findings.
II. Scientific Fraud Underlying the Marketing and Sale of Glyphosate
29. Based on early studies that glyphosate could cause cancer in laboratory
animals, the EPA originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans
(Group C) in 1985. After pressure from Monsanto, including contrary studies it
provided to the EPA, the EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-
carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. In so classifying glyphosate, however,
the EPA stated that “[i]t should be emphasized, however, that designation of an agent in
Group E is based on the available evidence at the time of evaluation and should not be
interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent will not be a carcinogen under any
circumstances.”
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 8 of 48 Page ID #:8
9 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30. On two occasions, the EPA found that laboratories hired by Monsanto to
test the toxicity of its Roundup products for registration purposes committed fraud.
31. In the first instance, Monsanto hired Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories
(“IBT”) to perform and evaluate pesticide toxicology studies relating to Roundup. IBT
performed approximately 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing-products,
including 9 of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup with the EPA.
32. In 1976, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) performed an
inspection of IBT and discovered discrepancies between the raw data and the final
report relating to the toxicological impacts of glyphosate. The EPA subsequently
audited IBT and determined that the toxicology studies conducted for the Roundup
were invalid. An EPA reviewer stated, after finding “routine falsification of data” at
IBT, that it was “hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said
they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits.”
33. Three top executives of IBT were convicted of fraud in 1983.
34. In the second incident, Monsanto hired Craven Laboratories in 1991 to
perform pesticide and herbicide studies, including several studies on Roundup. That
same year, the owner of Craven Laboratories and three of its employees were indicted,
and later convicted, of fraudulent laboratory practices in the testing of pesticides and
herbicides.
III. Monsanto’s Market Dominance
35. The success of Roundup was key to Monsanto’s continued reputation and
dominance in the marketplace. Largely due to the success of Roundup sales,
Monsanto’s agriculture division was out-performing its chemicals division’s operating
income, and that gap increased yearly. But with its patent for glyphosate expiring in the
United States in the year 2000, Monsanto needed a strategy to maintain its Roundup
market dominance and to ward off impending competition.
36. In response, Monsanto began the development and sale of genetically
engineered “Roundup Ready” seeds in 1996. Since Roundup Ready crops are resistant
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 9 of 48 Page ID #:9
10 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to glyphosate, farmers can spray Roundup onto their fields during the growing season
without harming the crop. This allowed Monsanto to expand its market for Roundup
even further. By 2000, Monsanto’s biotechnology seeds were planted on more than 80
million acres worldwide and nearly 70% of American soybeans were planted from
Roundup Ready seeds. It also secured Monsanto’s dominant share of the
glyphosate/Roundup market through a marketing strategy that coupled proprietary
Roundup Ready seeds with continued sales of its Roundup herbicide.
37. Through a three-pronged strategy of increased production, decreased
prices and by coupling with Roundup Ready seeds, Roundup became Monsanto’s most
profitable product. In 2000, Roundup accounted for almost $2.8 billion in sales,
outselling other herbicides by a margin of five to one, and accounting for close to half
of Monsanto’s revenue. Today, glyphosate remains one of the world’s largest
herbicides by sales volume.
IV. Monsanto Falsely Advertised Roundup as Being Safe for Decades
38. In 1996, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a lawsuit
against Monsanto based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup products.
Specifically, the lawsuit challenged Monsanto’s general representations that its spray-
on glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, were “safer than table salt” and
“practically non-toxic” to mammals, birds, and fish. Among the representations the
NYAG found deceptive and misleading about the human and environmental safety of
Roundup are:
a. “Remember that environmentally friendly Roundup herbicide is
biodegradable. It won’t build up in the soil so you can use Roundup with
confidence along customers’ driveways, sidewalks and fences.”
b. “And remember that Roundup is biodegradable and won’t build up in the
soil. That will give you the environmental confidence you need to use
Roundup everywhere you’ve got a weed, brush, edging or trimming
problem.”
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 10 of 48 Page ID #:10
11 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. “Roundup biodegrades into naturally occurring elements.”
d. “Remember that versatile Roundup herbicide stays where you put it. That
means there’s no washing or leaching to harm customers’ shrubs or other
desirable vegetation.”
e. “This non-residual herbicide will not wash or leach in the soil. It ... stays
where you apply it.”
f. You can apply Roundup with “confidence because it will stay where you
put it,” it bonds tightly to soil particles, preventing leaching. Then, soon
after application, soil microorganisms biodegrade Roundup into natural
products.
g. “Glyphosate is less toxic to rats than table salt following acute oral
ingestion.”
h. “Glyphosate’s safety margin is much greater than required. It has over a
1,000-fold safety margin in food and over a 700-fold safety margin for
workers who manufacture it or use it.”
i. “You can feel good about using herbicides by Monsanto. They carry a
toxicity category rating of ‘practically non-toxic’ as it pertains to
mammals, birds and fish.”
j. “Roundup can be used where kids and pets will play and breaks down into
natural material.” This ad depicts a person with his head in the ground and
a pet dog standing in an area that has been treated with Roundup.
39. On November 19, 1996, Monsanto entered into an Assurance of
Discontinuance with NYAG, in which Monsanto agreed, among other things, “to cease
and desist from publishing or broadcasting any advertisements [in New York] that
represent, directly or by implication” that:
a. glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are
safe, non-toxic, harmless or free from risk;
b. glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 11 of 48 Page ID #:11
12 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
manufactured, formulated, distributed or sold by Monsanto are
biodegradable;
c. glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof stay
where they are applied under all circumstances and will not move through
the environment by any means;
d. glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are
“good” for the environment or are “known for their environmental
characteristics”;
e. glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof are
safer or less toxic than common consumer products other than herbicides;
and,
f. glyphosate-containing products or any component thereof might be
classified as “practically non-toxic.”
40. Monsanto did not alter its advertising in the same manner in any state
other than New York, and on information and belief still has not done so today.
41. In 2009, France’s highest court ruled that Monsanto had not told the truth
about the safety of Roundup. The French court affirmed an earlier judgment that
Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide Roundup as “biodegradable” and that it
“left the soil clean.”
V. Assessments of Glyphosate
42. The IARC process for the classification of glyphosate followed the
stringent procedures for the evaluation of a chemical agent. Over time, the IARC
Monograph program has reviewed 980 agents. Of those reviewed, it has determined
116 agents to be Group 1 (Known Human Carcinogens); 73 agents to be Group 2A
(Probable Human Carcinogens); 287 agents to be Group 2B (Possible Human
Carcinogens); 503 agents to be Group 3 (Not Classified); and one agent to be Probably
Not Carcinogenic.
43. The established procedure for IARC Monograph evaluations is described
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 12 of 48 Page ID #:12
13 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in the IARC Programme’s Preamble. Evaluations are performed by panels of
international experts, selected on the basis of their expertise and the absence of actual
or apparent conflicts of interest.
44. A year before the Monograph meeting, the meeting is announced and there
is a call both for data and for experts. Eight months before the Monograph meeting, the
Working Group membership is selected and the sections of the Monograph are
developed by the Working Group members. One month prior to the Monograph
meeting, the call for data is closed and the various draft sections are distributed among
Working Group members for review and comment. Finally, at the Monograph meeting,
the Working Group finalizes review of all literature, evaluates the evidence in each
category, and completes the overall evaluation. Within two weeks after the Monograph
meeting, the summary of the Working Group findings are published in Lancet
Oncology, and within a year after the meeting, the final Monograph is finalized and
published.
45. In assessing an agent, the IARC Working Group reviews the following
information: (a) human, experimental, and mechanistic data; (b) all pertinent
epidemiological studies and cancer bioassays; and (c) representative mechanistic data.
The studies must be publicly available and have sufficient detail for meaningful review,
and reviewers cannot be associated with the underlying study.
46. In March 2015, IARC reassessed glyphosate. The summary published in
The Lancet Oncology reported that glyphosate is a Group 2A agent and probably
carcinogenic in humans.
47. On July 29, 2015, IARC issued its Monograph for glyphosate, Monograph
112. For Volume 112, the volume that assessed glyphosate, the Working Group
consisted of 17 experts from 11 countries who met from March 3–10, 2015, to assess
the carcinogenicity of certain herbicides, including glyphosate. The March meeting
culminated after a nearly one-year review and preparation by the IARC Secretariat and
the Working Group, including a comprehensive review of the latest available scientific
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 13 of 48 Page ID #:13
14 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evidence. According to published procedures, the Working Group considered “reports
that have been published or accepted for publication in the openly available scientific
literature” as well as “data from governmental reports that are publicly available.”
48. The studies considered the various exposure groups, including
occupational exposure of farmers and tree nursery workers in the United States, forestry
workers in Canada and Finland, municipal weed-control workers in the United
Kingdom, and para-occupational exposure in farming families.
49. Glyphosate was identified as the second-most used household herbicide in
the United States for weed control between 2001 and 2007 and the most heavily used
herbicide in the world in 2012.
50. Exposure pathways are identified as air (especially during spraying),
water, and food. Community exposure to glyphosate is widespread and found in soil,
air, surface water, and groundwater, as well as in food.
51. The assessment of the IARC Working Group identified several case
control studies of occupational exposure in the United States, Canada, and Sweden.
These studies showed a human health concern from agricultural and other work-related
exposure to glyphosate.
52. The IARC Working Group conducted a systematic review of over 15
studies designed to assess whether there was an association between Roundup exposure
in agricultural workers and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). The researchers
reviewed each study, identified the results and assessed each study’s strengths and
weaknesses. The IARC Working Group concluded that, despite the limited evidence
concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans, a “positive association has
been observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
53. In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence
of a rare tumor, renal tubule carcinoma. A second study reported a positive trend for
haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma
in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumors in an
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 14 of 48 Page ID #:14
15 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
initiation-promotion study in mice.
54. The IARC Working Group also found that glyphosate caused DNA and
chromosomal damage in human cells. One study in community residents reported
increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate
formulations were sprayed. In assessing the genotoxicity of glyphosate (the property of
chemical agents that damages the genetic information within a cell causing mutations,
which may lead to cancer), the IARC Working Group concluded “[t]here is strong
evidence that glyphosate causes genotoxicity.”
55. Additionally, the IARC assessed whether glyphosate exposure can induce
oxidative stress, which is thought to be involved in the development of numerous
conditions, including cancer, autism, and Parkinson’s disease. The IARC concluded
that “strong evidence exists that glyphosate . . . can induce oxidative stress.” This
could be an important mechanism by which Roundup causes cancer.1
56. The IARC Working Group also noted that glyphosate has been detected in
urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption. The IARC Working Group
specifically evaluated farm workers in the United States, and found that, within the days
following the application of Roundup to a crop, approximately 60% of farm workers
tested positive for glyphosate in the urine. Additionally, the IARC Working Group
noted that soil microbes degrade glyphosate to aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA).
Blood AMPA detection after exposure suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in
humans.
57. The IARC Working Group also reviewed an Agricultural Health Study,
consisting of a prospective cohort of 57,311 licensed pesticide applicators in Iowa and
1 In addition to DNA damage and oxidative stress, some scientists have suggested that
Roundup’s association with various serious health conditions is linked to the effect Roundup has on the digestive system. Specifically, some scientists believe the same mechanism that makes Roundup toxic to weeds also makes it toxic to the microbes within the human gut. When humans are exposed to Roundup, it leads to a chronic inflammatory state in the gut, as well an impaired gut barrier, which can lead to many long-term health effects, including an increased risk of cancer.
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 15 of 48 Page ID #:15
16 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
North Carolina. While this study differed from others in that it was based on a self-
administered questionnaire, the results support an association between glyphosate
exposure and Multiple Myeloma, Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL), and Chronic
Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), in addition to several other cancers.
58. In addition to the IARC’s assessment, in 2014, scientists published a
systematic review and meta-analysis on the relationship between non-Hodgkin
lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticides, including glyphosate,
in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The study
showed a statistically significant association between farm workers exposed to
Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The study confirmed two smaller studies from
2002 and 2008, published in the journal Leukemia & Lymphoma (2002) and the
International Journal on Cancer (2008), both of which also showed a statistically
significant increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma among agricultural workers exposed to
glyphosate.
59. Recent studies, including a glyphosate residue study published in the
Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology in 2014, indicate that “chronically
ill humans showed significantly higher glyphosate residues in urine than healthy
population.” Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural
workers, indicating that agricultural use of Roundup leads to its absorption.
60. In 1995, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides reported
that, in California, which has the most comprehensive program for reporting pesticide-
caused illness, glyphosate was the third-most reported cause of pesticide illness among
agricultural workers.
61. Several countries around the world have instituted bans on the sale of
Roundup and other glyphosate-containing herbicides, both before and since IARC first
announced its assessment for glyphosate in March 2015, and more countries
undoubtedly will follow suit as the dangers of the use of Roundup are more widely
known.
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 16 of 48 Page ID #:16
Cynthia Garber, Esq. (SBN: 208922) [email protected] 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Esq. [email protected] Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. [email protected] 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, New York 12443 Telephone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile: (845) 230-3111 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 2:16-cv-01609 Document 1 Filed 03/09/16 Page 48 of 48 Page ID #:48